The Pervasive Nature of Heterodox Economic Spaces at a Time of Neoliberal Crisis: Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

Richard J. White
Faculty of Development and Society, Shefeld Hallam University, Shefeld, UK; richard.white@shu.ac.uk

Colin C. Williams
School of Management, University of Shefeld, Shefeld, UK c.c.williams@shefeld.ac.uk

Abstract: Re-reading the economic landscape of the western world as a largely noncapitalist landscape composed of economic plurality, this paper demonstrates how economic relations in contemporary western society are often embedded in noncommodied practices such as mutual aid, reciprocity, co-operation and inclusion. By highlighting how the long-overlooked lived practices in the contemporary world of production, consumption and exchange are heavily grounded in the very types and essences of non-capitalist economic relations that have long been proposed by anarchistic visions of employment and organization, this paper displays that such visions are far from utopian: they are embedded rmly in the present. Through focusing on the pervasive nature of heterodox economic spaces in the UK in particular, some ideas about how to develop an anarchist future of work and organization will be proposed. The outcome is to begin to engage in the demonstrative construction of a future based on mutualism and autonomous modes of organization and representation. Keywords: anarchist geographies, heterodox economics, crisis, postneoliberalism [I]t becomes evident that the economic institutions which control production and exchange are far from giving to society the prosperity which they are supposed to guarantee; they produce precisely the opposite result. Instead of order they bring forth chaos; instead of prosperity, poverty and insecurity; instead of reconciled interests, war; a perpetual war of the exploiter against the worker, of exploiters and of workers among themselves. Weary of these wars, weary of the miseries which they cause, society rushes to seek a new organization (Peter Kropotkin 2002 [1880]:36). An anarchist society, a society which organizes itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the snow (Colin Ward 1982:14).

Introduction
Once more we nd ourselves bearing witness to another crisis of neoliberalism (Castree 2010; Hart 2010; Wade 2010). It is crisis which, at the very least, signals that (t)he free-market project is on the ropes (Peck, Theodore and Brenner
Antipode Vol. 00 No. 00 2012 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 120 C 2012 The Authors. Antipode C 2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01033.x

Antipode

2010:94) and perhaps even that the global capitalist system is approaching an z apocalyptic zero-point (Ziek 2011:x). Despite this, the thesis of commodication which asserts that, the market is becoming more powerful, expansive, hegemonic and totalizing as it penetrates deeper into each and every corner of economic life (Williams 2005:1) continues to exert a powerful and popular inuence in mainstream economic thought and practice (Cahill 1989; Shiva 2005). The central argument of this paper is that to move purposefully towards postneoliberal (anarchist) futures the blind faith given to the orthodox neoliberal economic model needs to be radically critiqued. As Fournier (2008:534) observed, an escape from the economy is at least as much a question of decolonising the imagination as one of enacting new practices. Strategies for economic change, to be successful, must simultaneously address both the economic practice and the economic imagination. To focus on one, but not the other, would be irrational given their complementary relationship. As Hardt and Negri (2001:386387) argue:
The bizarre naturalness of capitalism is a pure and simple mystication, and we have to disabuse ourselves of it right away . . . The illusion of the naturalness of capitalism and the radicality of the limit actually stand in a relationship of complementary. Their complicity is expressed in an exhausting powerless.

To realise this, this paper identies itself closely with that body of work in economic geography and cognate elds, which through an attention to space, place and difference, rejects the tendencies towards formalism and homogeneity inherent within orthodox economics(and) has begun to theorise the proliferative nature of economic life (Leyshon 2005:860). Over the last 20 years, this re-reading has gained signicant inuence within geography and other critical approaches toward the economic by conceptualising, capturing and understanding the rich, complex, multiple and diverse economic landscapes of contemporary society (Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004; Leyshon, Lee and Williams 2003; Samers 2005; Williams 2005, 2007, 2011). One of the most impressive interventions to de-centre capitalism and develop transformative projects of non-capitalist development has been the work of GibsonGraham (1996, 2006a, 2006b). More widely, there have been complementary (eco)feminist campaigns to recognise the value of unpaid work (for example, Benston 1969; England 1996; Katz and Monk 1993; McDowell 1983; McMahaon 1996); an unpacking of the nature of monetary exchange to rework the social nature of the economic (eg Crang 1996; Crewe and Gregson 1998; White 2009); and attempts to highlight non-traditional neglected sites of consumption such as alternative retail spaces (Crewe, Gregson and Brooks 2003); garage sales (Soiffer and Hermann 1987); car boot sales (Gregson and Crewe 2002, 2003); charity shops (Williams and Paddock 2003); and local currencies (eg Cahn 2000; Lee 1996; North 1996). This radical commitment to re-reading the orthodox neoliberal approaches to the economic has led to diverse, multiple and heterogenic modes of economic conceptualisation, representation, meaning and materialisation being identied and represented. This in turn has resulted in far richer contemporary economic landscapes emerging, within which the capitalist mode of production in is seen to be highly uneven and incomplete.
2012 The Authors. Antipode 2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

This paper further exposes the misleading representations of the economy by orthodox (neoliberal) economic interpretations, by critically addressing the commodication thesis. Drawing on empirical evidence from a selection of western economies (the heartlands of commodication), it brings a range of vibrant, creative, heterodox, and non-commodied crypto-economic practices in our contemporary economic landscapes to the fore. Crucially, it argues that many of these practices are ideologically orientated toward anarchist-based visions of work and organisation and discusses the implications of this recognition for anarchist thought and practice. In doing so the intention is to reconsider future possibilities of work and organisation. At a time when anarchist praxis is once again growing in importance as a socio-political mobilizer both within the academy and beyond, the paper argues that many non-commodied economic practices that occupy pervasive roles in production, exchange, and consumption are the very types of non-capitalist economic relations that have long been proposed by classical anarchistic visions of work and organisation. One of the important implications for anarchism is to show that post-neoliberal visions grounded in anarchist thought and praxis are far from utopian: indeed they are deeply rooted within contemporary society. The aim for anarchism to build a concrete utopia, and embed future possibilities within present praxis is crucial, and was certainly central to the work of Peter Kropotkin, one of the most outstanding and inuential anarchists of the last century:
As to the method followed by the anarchist thinker, he (Kropotkin) wrote in 1887, it is entirely different from that followed by the utopists . . . He studies human society as it is now and was in the past . . . tries to discover its tendencies, past and present, its growing needs, intellectual and economic, and in his ideal he merely points out in which direction evolution goes (Cleaver 1994:120).

The opening section of the paper will focus on the body of critical economic literature that has sought to map the limits to capitalism and promote a heterodox reading of the economic. This will then be followed by a discussion of how the key outcomes emerging from this critical reading of economics resonates with anarchist-inspired visions of human engagement, work and organisation. Following this, some empirical evidence will be provided of the plurality of economic practices evident within western societies. This will be achieved both inter-nationally (using time-budget studies) and intra-nationally (through a household work practices survey conducted in an array of UK communities) so as to reveal at the human scale the current pervasiveness of diversity and difference in livelihood practices in order to open up the future to alternative neoliberal hegemony. Following an evaluation of the reasons for the pervasiveness of these non-commodied economic spaces in the contemporary western world, some provisional proposals of economic practices and economic imagination about how to develop an anarchist future of work and organisation will emerge. Importantly the proposals engage with both economic practices and the economic imagination. The hope is that this will instigate further discussion and exploration about how best to engage in the demonstrative construction of a non-commodied anarchist future based on mutualism, pluralism, autonomous modes of organisation and representation.

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

Anarchist Economics and the Pervasiveness of Heterodox Economic Spaces in Contemporary Western Society The Nature and Meaning of Anarchism
Despite its distinct, long and impressive history, anarchism has been the victim of malicious characterisation and misrepresentation in popular circles (see Amster et al 2009). Emma Goldman (1979:48) for example considered there to be two principal (and awed) objections to anarchism:
First, Anarchism is impractical, though a beautiful ideal. Second, Anarchism stands for violence and destruction; hence it must be repudiated as vile and dangerous. Both the intelligent man and the ignorant mass judge not from a thorough knowledge of the subject, but either from hearsay or false interpretation.

However to interpret a true nature and meaning of anarchism is highly problematic in much the same way as dening and locating an authentic version of Marxism is. As Castoriadis (1987:9) argued, to speak of Marxism has become one of the most difcult tasks imaginable . . . Of which Marxism, in fact, should we be speaking? In order to make some constructive headway, an appeal to the (pluralistic) natures and meanings of anarchism will be interpreted in the rst instance by engaging with the historical roots of classical anarchism, and understanding the wider context in which it came to prominence. The emergence of classical anarchism is closely situated within the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Viewed in this context, the rise of anarchist thoughts and ideas were seen as a direct response to the feverish rise and expansion of the modern state and industrial capitalism (Goodway 1989). Importantly the emerging contribution and role of anarchism has often been framed with critical reference to its relationship with Marxism (see Gu rin 1989). For example, Carter (1989:177) e argued that:
Anarchism and Marxism have, since the middle of the nineteenth century, strenuously competed for the minds of the Left. The major strength of anarchist theory has corresponded with the most obvious weakness of Marxism, namely the prediction (successful in the cases of anarchism, unsuccessful in the case of Marxism) of the nature of a post-capitalist society brought into being by a revolutionary party seizing control of the state.

On many levels, the seeds of the highly contested nature(s) of anarchism and Marxism can be traced back the difcult relationships that developed between Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (the rst to invoke the word an-archy); Michael Bakunin, and Karl Marx. As Kenack (1990:10) observed:
Bakunin had many discussions with Marx . . . and though greatly impressed by the German thinkers real genius, scholarship and revolutionary zeal and energy, was repelled by his arrogance, egotism and jealously . . . But at this period of the early eighteen forties their differences had not yet matured and Bakunin no doubt learned a good deal from Marx of the doctrine of Historical Materialism which is so important an element in both these great Socialistic thinkers work.

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

The events at the Congress of the International at the Hague in 1872 is frequently cited as a decisive moment in the acrimonious schism that has inspired often (bitter) relations between Anarchism and Marxism, for it was here that:
This meeting . . . was packed by the Marxists in a manner which later Communist tactics have made only too familiar. The equally familiar tactics of character-assassination were also resorted to by Marx, to his every lasting discredit, and Bakunin and his closest friends and Collaborator, James Guillaume, were expelled from the International (Kenack 1990:14).

The subsequent momentum and development of anarchist thought to thought and practice is in many ways a testimony to its protean and pluralistic appeal. Thus, as Marshall (1993:3) argues:
It would be misleading to offer a neat denition of anarchism, since by its very nature it is anti-dogmatic. It does not offer a xed body of doctrine based on one particular world-view. It is a complex and subtle philosophy, embracing many different currents of thought and strategy. Indeed anarchism is like a river with many currents and eddies, constantly changing and being refreshed by new surges but always moving toward the wide ocean of freedom.

McKay (2008:18) makes another crucial and related point when arguing that anarchism is:
a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are exible, in a constant state of evolution and ux, and open to modication in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism.

It is important that any understanding of anarchism does not overemphasise the (common) belief that anarchism is simply anti-government. In appealing to its etymological roots to elicit a denition this imbalance is evident here:
What we are concerned with, in terms of denition, is a cluster of works which in turn represents a cluster of doctrines and attitudes whose principal uniting feature is the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. A double Greek root is involved: the word archon, meaning a ruler, and the prex an, indicating without; hence anarchy means the state of being without a ruler. By derivation, anarchism is the doctrine which contends that government is the source of most of our social troubles and that there are viable alternative forms of voluntary organization. And by further denition the anarchist is the man (sic) who sets out to create a society without government (Woodcock 1986:11).

A more nuanced and critical understanding of anarchism would properly recognise that anarchist thought has mobilised not only around opposition to the state and capitalism, but in opposition to all forms of external authority and thus all forms of domination. This argument is well represented here by Goodway (1989:2):
Anarchists have traditionally identied the major social, economic, and political problems as consisting of capitalism, inequality (including the domination of women by men), sexual repression, militarism, war, authority, and the state. They have

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode
opposed parliamentarianism, that is, liberal or bourgeois democracy, participation in representative institutionsas any kind of means for rectifying these ills.

Only through acknowledging such diversity and critical intersections can the richness and diversity of the movements which are anarchistincluding anarchistcommunism, individualist anarchism, collectivist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, pacist anarchism and Christian anarchismbegin to be appreciated. As Ward (2004:3) argues, this helps account for more recently emerging varieties of anarchist propaganda, (such as) green anarchism and anarcha-feminism. Like those who believe that animal liberation is an aspect of human liberation, they claim that the only ideology consistent with their aims is anarchism. However, and despite the many advantages in maintaining an inclusive approach to anarchism, there have been unintendedand unwantedconsequences. For example by including any form of anti-authoritarianism as overtly anarchist, this has led to a mis-appropriation of the anarchist ideal, as is evident in the debates surrounding the oxymoronic notion of anarcho-capitalism for instance (see McKay 2008:section F). Attempts to address any overly inclusive interpretation of anarchism must be careful not to go too far. Such is the accusation levied against Walt and Schmidt (2009) who in arguing that class struggle anarchism (syndicalism) is the only coherent expression of anarchism, consequently excluded such luminary gures as Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Tucker, and Tolstoy from the anarchist tradition. To better understand the nature of anarchism, effort must also be made to ascertain what it stands for, rather than just stands against. Goodway (1989:23), for example, argues that:
(W)hat anarchists advocate are egalitarianism, co-operation (mutual aid), workers control (self-management), individualism, freedom, and complete decentralization (organization from the bottom up). As means, they propose direct action (spontaneity) and direct democracy (wherever possible, for they are ultra-democrats, supporting delegation against representation).

Focusing on anarchist economics, Cahill (1989:244) argues that: The economics of anarchism must be (1) decentralized, (2) equalitarian, (3) self-managing and empowering, (4) based on local needs, and (5) supported by other autonomous units in a non-hierarchical fashion. Finally, McKay (2008:21) rightly draws attention to the fact that anarchism is, and always has been:
more than just a means of analysis or a vision of a better society. It is also rooted in struggle, the struggle of the oppressed for their freedom. In other words, it provides a means of achieving a new system based on the needs of people, not power, and which puts the planet before prot.

Similarly, Bookchin (1989:274) considered that in its greatest moments, anarchism was always a peoples movement as well as a body of ideas and visions. To sum up, when addressing the nature and meaning of anarchism, it is imperative that anarchism is not reduced:
to the mere use of the word anarchism, but rather might highlight and propose social relations based on cooperation, self-determination, and negating hierarchical roles. From

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

this perspective, one can nd a much richer and more global tradition of social and political thought and organization that while not raising a black ag in the air is very useful for expanding the scope of human possibilities in a liberatory direction (Shukaitis 2009:170).

Even if packaged denitions of anarchism are elusive, we can be certain that many of the ndings emerging from a diverse economies approach have much to offer anarchist-oriented critiques of economy and society. This includes the advocacy of a move away from capitalocentric economic discourse (Gibson-Graham 2006a); from thin to thicker readings of economic exchange (White and Williams 2010; Zelizer 1997); emphasising voluntary co-operation and mutualism (Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004; Williams and Windebank 2001); and engaging with the complex economic geographies present within the local (White 2009). Moreover, the desire to explore non-capitalist alternative economic practices within contemporary society has a great precedence in anarchism, and is certainly evident in Kropotkins extensive body of work. As Cleaver (1994:122) observes:
(Kropotkins) work fascinates not because it gives us formulae for the future but because it shows us how to discover tendencies in the present which provide alternative paths out of the current crisis and out of the capitalist system. As that system has developed in the years since he wrote, some of the alternatives he saw were absorbed and ceased to provide ways forward. Others have survived. Others, inevitably, have appeared. Our problem is to recognize them, to evaluate them and, where we nd it appropriate, to support their development.

Ward (1982:5) similarly asserts that:

Many years of attempting to be an anarchist propagandist have convinced me that we win over our fellow citizen to anarchist ideas, precisely through drawing upon the common experience of the informal, transients, self-organising networks of relationships that in fact make human community possible, rather than through the rejection of existing society as a whole in favor of some future society where some different kind of humanity will live in perfect harmony.

It is toward unearthing these informal and self-organising networks of relationships across the contemporary economic landscape to which the paper now turns. Before doing so, a contextual point is necessary. The central evidence base below is focused on the western economies, the so-called heartland of our commodied world. When analysed from a global economic perspective, this geographical focus is obviously partial and incomplete. However, such a focus challenges head on the conventional wisdom of the natural and inevitable trajectory of economic development. The popular assumption imagines that the economic landscapes of the advanced economies are highly commodied, and that signicant non-commodied spaces are mostly found in under-developed or transitional economies of the majority world. This is certainly evident in policy approaches to global economic development. For example, the International Labour Organization (ILO 2008, 2010) under the agenda of decent work, has included extensive research on the informal sector of Latin America (ILO 2002a), Central America (ILO 2002b) and other non-western countries to help enable an economic transition to formalization (ILO 2007). However, the focus here upon western economies
C

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

8
Monetised

Antipode

Formal paid job in in private sector

Formal

Formal paid job in public/third sector

Informal employment

Monetised community exchanges

Monetised family labour

Informal

Formal unpaid work private sector

in

Formal unpaid work in public/third sector

Off-theradar nonmonetised work in organisation

One-to-one nonmonetised exchanges

Nonexchanged labour

Non-monetised

Figure 1: A typology of work practices

illustrates that non-commodied spaces are still at the core (rather than the margins) of even the advanced, and commodied economies. The clear implication is that non-commodied spaces cannot be depicted as the mere vestige of a disappearing past [or as] transitory or provisional (Latouche 1993:49), located in the so-called periphery or margins of the global economic landscape, but persist in the very heartlands of our commodied world.

Economic Typologies
Given the richness and complexity of economic exchange in society, some of which is memorably captured in Gibson-Grahams (2006b:70) economic iceberg model, any attempts to conceptualise the relationship(s) between different types of economic space will be inevitably crude in their execution.1 Recognising this, economic representations have become increasingly nuanced in the hope of better capturing the diversity of economic lived practice. One of the most promising of these is the use of a total social organisation of labour approach (TSOL) designed to capture the multiplicity of labour practices that exist on a horizontal spectrum, moving from formal to informal work practices, which are cross-cut by a vertical spectrum that moves from wholly monetised to wholly non-monetised practices (see Williams 2011). This representation of different (but inter-linked) spheres of work (see Figure 1) has been inuential. In an orthodox (neoliberal) reading of economic development, the assumption is that the world is becoming increasingly commodied (Polanyi 1944; Scott 2001) with work becoming increasingly concentrated in formal paid jobs in the private sector. The thesis is that this sphere is expanding at the expense of all other spheres. However, when evidence is sought to corroborate this grand narrative of commodication, the most worrying and disturbing nding . . . is that hardly any evidence is ever brought to the fore by its adherents either to show that a process of commodication is taking place or even to display the extent, pace or unevenness of its penetration (Williams 2005:23). Instead, quite the opposite has been found.
C

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

Table 1: Allocation of working time in western economies
Paid work (min per day) 293 283 297 265 265 282 304 268 297 Non-exchanged work (min per day) 204 155 246 209 232 206 231 216 230

Country Canada Denmark France Netherlands Norway UK USA Finland 20 countries

Time spent on non-exchanged work as% of all work 41.0 35.3 45.3 44.1 46.7 42.2 43.2 44.6 43.6

Source: derived from Gershuny (2000:Table 7.1)

Table 2: Unpaid and paid work as a% of total work time across 20 countries, 1960present
19601973 Country Paid work Subsistence work Min per day 309 237 546 % of all work 56.6 43.4 100.0 19741984 Min per day 285 212 497 % of all work 57.3 42.7 100.0 1985present Min per day 293 235 528 % of all work 55.4 44.6 100.0

Source: derived from Gershuny (2000:Table 7.1)

The Inter-National Persistence of Non-commodied Work Practices

At the inter-national level, the results generated by time-budget studies have been particularly inuential (Gershuny 2000). As Table 1 indicates, across 20 countries, an average of 43.6% of working time is spent engaged in unpaid domestic work (ie non-exchanged labour), which seriously calls into question the extent of commodication of the so-called advanced western economies. Neither is there evidence that there has been a denite transition over time towards commodied work or even monetised transactions (see Table 2). Indeed paid work, when taken as a percentage of total working time across the 20 countries, is decreasing over time.

Evaluating the Intra-national Persistence of Non-commodied Work Practices

To evaluate the intra-national persistence of non-commodied work practices, evidence is drawn from 861 face-to-face interviews undertaken across a range of deprived and afuent urban and rural English localities (see Williams 2011). The term deprivation, as understood here, is based upon a range of indices (including income levels, employment, health, education, skills, housing, crime and the environment) used by the UK government to form their Index of Deprivation to
C

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

10 Table 3: UK localities studied

Locality type Afuent rural Afuent rural Deprived rural Deprived rural Deprived rural Afuent suburb Afuent suburb Deprived urban Deprived urban Deprived urban Deprived urban Area Fulbourn, Cambridgeshire Chalford, Gloucestershire Grimethorpe, South Yorkshire Wigston, Cumbria St Blazey, Cornwall Fulwood, Shefeld Basset/Chilworth, Southampton Manor, Shefeld Pitsmoor, Shefeld St Marys, Southampton Hightown, Southampton

Antipode

Number of interviews 70 70 70 70 70 50 61 100 100 100 100

rank Englands wards relative to each other. Although there is no standard denition of neighbourhood, it is generally viewed as an appropriate scale to help focus attention on those areas where comparative deprivation/afuence are apparent. Drawing on data generated by the UK governments Index of Multiple Deprivation (ODPM 2000), a maximum variation sampling was used to select localities amongst the highest and lowest ranked in terms of multiple deprivation (see Table 3). The rural localities studied, for example Grimethorpe, St Blazey and Wigton, have much higher proportions of low-income households, unemployment and lower educational attainment levels than Fulbourn and Chalford. The interviews undertaken in these localities were semi-structured. Having gathered necessary socio-demographic background data (age, gender, household income, employment status, work history), the interview then focused on the type of labour that a household had called upon to undertake up to 44 domestic tasks.2 For each task, the respondent was asked whether the task had been undertaken; if so who had carried out the work (and why), and whether or not it was done on a paid or unpaid basis (and why). Then the same tasks were addressed but this time asking the respondent if they (or other members of their household) had done work for other households and, if so, under what basis. The nding is that participation rates in monetised labour are not extensive (see Table 4). In lived practice, less than a fth of respondents in deprived localities had participated in paid formal labour over the previous 12 months. In afuent localities, this gure was higher but still accounted for less than 50% of the respondents. Moreover, when these ndings are taken in conjunction with nonexchanged labour and non-monetised informal community exchanges then what emerges is an economic reality in which private sector formal labour is marginal, and is of signicance only to a small minority of the population. When focusing on the labour practices employed by households to complete the tasks investigated, Table 5 again suggests only a shallow and uneven penetration of formal market labour. Hence, only a limited commodication has taken place in these English localities. Indeed, just 16% of tasks when last undertaken had used formal market labour.
C

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

Table 4: Participation rates in different labour practices
% Respondents in last 12 months participating in: Monetised labour Formal paid job in private sector Formal paid job in public and third sector Informal employment Monetised community exchange Monetised family labour Non-monetised labour Formal unpaid work in private sector Formal unpaid work in public and third sector Off the radar/non-monetised work in organisations One-to-one non-monetised exchanges Non-exchanged labour
Source : Colin Williamss own English localities survey

11

Deprived urban

Afuent urban

Deprived rural

Afuent rural

16 20 5 60 3 1 19 2 52 99

48 27 7 21 6 2 28 0 70 100

19 18 6 63 2 1 21 2 54 100

49 25 8 30 4 2 30 1 73 100

Table 5: Type of labour practices used to conduct 44 domestic tasks by locality type
% Tasks last conducted using: Monetised labour Formal paid job in private sector Formal paid job in public and third sector Informal employment Monetised community exchange Monetised family labour Non-monetised labour Formal unpaid work in private sector Formal unpaid work in public and third sector Off the radar/non-monetised work in organisations One-to-one non monetised exchanges Non-exchanged labour Total 2 Deprived urban Afuent urban Deprived rural Afuent rural All areas

12 2 2 3 1 <1 <1 <1 4 76 100 102.89

15 2 8 1 <1 0 0 0 2 72 100 29.87

18 2 <1 4 1 <1 <1 <1 8 67 100 89.76

22 2 4 1 1 <1 0 0 7 63 100 28.88

16 2 2 3 1 <1 <1 0 6 70 100

Note: 2 >12.838 in all cases, leading us to reject H o within a 99.5% condence interval that there are no spatial variations in the sources of labour used to complete the 44 household services. Source: Colin Williamss own English localities survey

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

12

Antipode

The results also indicate the uneven permeation of formal market labour and the existence of contrasting work cultures across populations. For example, lowerincome populations are less monetised than higher-income ones. The household work practices of higher-income populations are also less reliant upon community exchange between close social relations (monetised and non-monetised). Self-help (self-provisioning) is still very dominant, with little work being sourced within the market realm. When the multifarious labour practices are taken into account alongside the evidence generated though time budget surveys, the empirical case to support the commodication thesis is weak. This understandingthat the commodication thesis is a popular mythis one which should give much inspiration to those anticipating and advocating a post-neoliberal economic future. The implications are considerable and transformative. To paraphrase the Community Collective (2001:34):
If we no longer understand capitalism as necessarily expansive and naturally dominant, we retain the imaginative space for alternatives and the rationale for their enactment. In reconconceptualizing the economy differently we can then enact a different economy. More specically, in de-naturalizing capitalist dominance we represent noncapitalist forms of economy (including ones we might value and desire) as both existing and emerging, and as possible to create.

If this discussion encourages anything, it is one which will re-appraise the conventional readings of the economy from an anarchist perspective. The economic landscape of the western world should be more properly understood as a largely non-capitalist landscape composed of economic plurality, wherein relations are often embedded in non-commodied practices such as mutual aid, reciprocity, co-operation and inclusion. This raises an important question:Why are non-commodied spaces so pervasive? And it is this question that (classical) anarchist readings concerning the nature of humans, and their relationship with others, are particularly well equipped to answer. The slim volume of research that has explored this question explicitly cites several key reasons for its persistence. For example, Williams and Windebank (2001) found that the main motivations for conducting non-commodied practices are economic necessity, ease, choice and pleasure. When contrasting higher and lower income neighbourhoods in a UK study of Shefeld and Southampton, Burns, Williams and Windebank (2004:chapter 3) found that economic necessity was the primary reason why lower-income urban neighbourhoods engaged in this form of activity, cited by 44% of the respondents. For higher-income households this accounted for just 10% of non-commodied tasks with other non-economic rationales such as ease, choice and pleasure coming to the fore instead. Thirty seven percent of higher-income neighbourhoods, and 18% of lower income neighbourhoods used non-commodied practices because this was easier than contacting and employing formal labour in the private sector. Elsewhere, households preferred to use non-commodied practices because the tasks would be completed to a higher standard and/or would be more individualised than if commodied labour was used. This preference was closely linked to engaging

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

13

in non-commodied practices because it was a pleasurable experience (the rationale for 32% of non-commodied tasks in afuent neighbourhoods and 14% in deprived neighbourhoods) (Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004:5758). To engage in do-ityourself projects (like decorating or other home improvement tasks) was something particularly worthwhile and rewarding. Of course this simple pleasure in undertaking the non-routine tasks, in direct contrast to formal work, has been highlighted in many anarchist writings. As Ward (1982:95) noted:
(A man or women) enjoys going home and digging in his garden because he is free from foremen, managers and bosses. He is free from the monotony and slavery of doing the same thing day in day out, and is in control of the whole job from start to nish. He is free to decide for himself how and when to set about it. He is responsible to himself and not to somebody else. He is working because he wants to and not because he has to. He is doing his own thing. He is his own man.

This spirit of this argument is also captured by Berkmann (1986 [1929]:336):

The need of activity is one of the most fundamental urges of man. Watch the child and see how strong is his instinct for action, for movement, for doing something. Strong and continuous. It is the same with the healthy man. His energy and vitality demand expression. Permit him to do the work of his choice, the thing he loves, and his application will know neither weariness nor shirking. You can observe this in the factory when he is lucky enough to own a garden or patch of ground to raise some owers or vegetables on.

Given this body of evidence, what can be meaningfully and constructively taken forward to help inform discussions and debate that are concerned with harnessing a post-neoliberal anarchist future?

Towards a Post-neoliberal Anarchist Future

Suppose our future in fact lies, not with a handful of technocrats pushing buttons to support the rest of us, but with a multitude of small activities, whether by individual or groups, doing their own thing? Suppose the only plausible economic recovery consists in people picking themselves up off the industrial scrapheap, or rejecting their slot in the micro-technology system, and making their own niche in the world of ordinary needs and their satisfaction. Wouldnt that be something to do with anarchism? (Ward 1982:13).

The above analysis has re-asserted the centrality of non-commodied spaces in an age of neoliberal economic crisis. Many alternative forms of social co-operation and ways of being not only persist in the contemporary world, but occupy a central place in many household and community livelihood practices. Moreover, many of these practices are empowering and desirable in that they are harnessed through choice, and not economic necessity. It is hoped that this will encourage anarchist-based visions of post-neoliberal futures to assert themselves condently from within these current economic landscapes, and help a secure bridge to be established between the contemporary world and that of a future (post-neoliberal) world. This bridging between what is and what could be is of critical importance for many reasons, but particularly given that: The problem of transcending capitalism is the search for the future in the present, the identication of already existing
C

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

14

Antipode

activities which embody new, alternative forms of social co-operation and ways of being (Cleaver 1994:129). This brings us to an important consideration: What . . . will it be like to live in a world dominated more and more by household and hidden economies and less by the formal economy? (Ward 1982:13) What possible new or alternative cryptoeconomic-anarchist spaces, might emerge from different modes of engagement, exchange and participation? It is to this consideration that we now turn.

Enabling Crypto-Economic Spaces to Emerge and Thrive

By seeking to unpack economic plurality, this paper has begun to critically undermine the commodication thesis. There exist large swathes of noncommodied spaces of production, exchange and consumption in both higher and lower income communities. This opens up alternative economic routes for moving purposefully toward a post-capitalist society. Crucially, however, attempts to sketch what crypto-economic spaces are possible, or desirable, must consciously avoid the temptation of unnecessarily imposing an overly narrow, singular, or best interpretation of what that economic future should be. Indeed plurality, diversity, and heterodox approaches to the future should be positively encouraged and embraced. As Baldelli (1972:82) argues:
In an anarchist society there will be positive freedom, freedom as power, but only in association with others, not over or against them. There is only one way to avoid making the individual powerless against society, and that is a plurality of societies within society, and a plurality of powers within or in accompaniment to each society. This double plurality should provide ample room for each individual to choose from a fair variety of possible destinies.

To this end, and situated rmly in the anarchist tradition, we would like to outline a two-pronged complementary approach that will enable crypto-economic spaces to emerge and thrive. The rst concerns the role of education, and the second focuses on the social and structural barriers to participation in non-commodied practices.

Liberating Education
From William Godwins (1986 [1793]) polemic about the evils of national education to the present day, anarchists and other dissident thinkers, notably Friere (1972) and Illich (1971), have invested a great deal of attention toward the role of (statecontrolled) schools and education. As Ward (1982:79) argues: Ultimately the social function of education is to perpetuate society: it is the social function. Society guarantees its future by rearing its children in its own image. At a fundamental level, encouraging the recognition and development of crypt-economic spaces depends on the ability of contemporary society to unshackle itself from the current straitjacket of neoliberal economic thought and discourse, and instead be inspired to envisage multiple possibilities of a post-neoliberal future. Education thusas it always has becomes a critical key, not only in inspiring greater critical thought and engagement
C

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

15

through engaging with heterodox economics, but also with re-inserting this in broader political frameworks. Undoubtedly educationboth compulsory and at higher levelsmust give serious consideration as to how best to incorporate these broader economic and political frameworks of reference and understanding. We would argue strongly that a core element of geography must (at all levels) turn towards its anarchist roots once more, dedicate resources not only to de-mystifying the anarchist tradition, but where relevant and possible, engaging directly with the (new) challenges and critiques that anarchism extols as a political and social ideology. Anarchist studies must strive to be, in the words of Shukaitis (2009:169), more than the study of anarchism and anarchists by anarchists, weaving a strange web of self-referentiality and endless rehashing of the deeds and ideas of bearded nineteenth-century European males. Pepper (1988:339340) suggests two ways to introduce the subject of anarchism into the geography classroom:
First pupils could be informed of some of the principles underlying various forms of anarchism (e.g., decentralism, self-reliance, anti-specialism, anti-urban/ pro-rural, egalitarianism), and asked to speculate on what changes would occur in Britains geography if these principles were applied.

Indeed the crisis of both neoliberal economics and the state demands that the need to radicalise and re-think approaches to these domains is taken up, and the current vogue for the business as usual model, or the oxymoronic call for sustainable capitalism is rmly critiqued, exposed and rejected. As Pepper (1988:350) argues, getting children to critically consider the contemporary (economic, social, political) landscapes should:
wean pupils away from a-historicism: that is, the distressing tendency to see the future as inevitablei.e., over-conditioned by the presentand only imaginable in terms of extrapolation from present assumptions (of gigantism, capitalism, technological determinism, etc.).

Importantly, with respect to the economic the evidence base presented here which constructively builds upon the critical interventions and interpretations arising from other dissident/heterodox economistsacts as another excellent point of discussion and departure from conventional neoliberal economic dogma.

Barriers to Participation in Non-commodied Practices

In addition to inuencing hearts and minds through pedagogic intervention as a strategy to ensure possibilities for crypto-economic spaces to emerge and thrive, close attention must also be placed to addressing the structural and social barriers to participation in non-commodied work practices. If a post-capitalist world is to be constructed, then a greater awareness of the structural and social barriers that prevent greater participation in non-commodied practices is required. Put broadly, and again drawing on previous research in the UK (Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004; White, 2009; Williams and Windebank, 2001) the nature of these barriers are uneven, and not only reect (a combination) of a households lack of money, time, skills, and social networks, but also several
C

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

16

Antipode

social taboos that include being a burden to others; false expectations, being taken advantage of and being unable to say no to others. More understanding through empirical research is thus required regarding how individuals can exist better outside the capitalist money economy. A nuanced bottom-up approach to understanding these barriers from the household and community level is desirable if they are to be successfully addressed. There must certainly be a holistic and sensitive, reective approach in place, one which is committed to recognising the critical intersections that operate in society. Without doubt the anarchist gaze should continue to focus on the sites of production and re-production at the human scale (Sale 1980), including those dominant spaces of education, housing, employment and the family in particular. With respect to the family, any intervention may take on new and unpredictable forms. As Ward (1982:129) argues:
Family life, based on the original community, has disappeared. A new family, based on community of aspirations, will take its place. In this family people will be obliged to know one another, to aid one another and to lean on one another moral support on every occasion.

It is also important to put the local, the community and the individual, at the heart of change, a point made by Norberg-Hodge (1992:181) in her study of Ladakh society:
The fabric of industrial society is to a great extent determined by the interaction of science, technology, and a narrow economic paradigmand interaction that is leading to ever-greater centralization and specialization. Since the Industrial revolution, the perspective of the individual has become more limited while political and economic units have grown larger. I have become convinced that we need to de-centralize our political and economic structures and broaden our approach to knowledge if we are to nd our way to a more balanced and sane society. In Ladakh, I have seen how humanscale structures nurture intimate bonds with the earth and an active and participatory democracy, while supporting strong and vital communities, healthy families, and a greater balance between male and female. These structures in turn provide the security needed for individual well-being and, paradoxically, for a sense of freedom.

A Final Thought
The anarchist sees the question of change as an immediate one, not something to be postponed until practical pressing matters are dealt with in an effective, but amoral, way (Cahill 1989:235).

That many seemingly entrenched obstacles can be overcome by direct actionby ordinary people taking responsibility for changing their own situationcan be witnessed on many levels, and in many places. Indeed there has been a great deal of evidence of good (anarchist-based) practice arising via the work that (radical) geographers have undertaken, particularly those focused on engaging with autonomous communities (eg Pickerill and Chatterton 2006). There is no doubt that many new and exciting strategies of resistance have yet to be explored, or properly understood, and not least from within the western world. This was a point
C

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

17

of considered reection by Chatterton (2010:898) while working with the Zapatista autonomous municipality of Morelia:
I began to think about the inspiring struggles and people I had met back home in the UK over the last few years. People ripping up genetically modied crops, breaking into warehouses to hold raves or military bases to dismantle jet ghters, blocking road developments or holding parties in the middle of motorways. The silent army of people organising free language classes for migrants or solidarity events against the poll tax, developing open source software, hacklabs and alternative news media. Under the bright inspiring lights of the Zapatista struggle, I had begun to forget just how many people continue to resist neoliberalism, the deadlock of consumer-led market fundamentalism and the patronising deadhand of representative democracy in a wealth of untold ways; often putting their own liberty on the line to struggle for a better, more equal society where everyone has a say in how it is built.

Critical academics and activists alike should take great heart and inspiration that we can perceive clear (anarchist) spaces and methods of social and economic organisation that are being continually produced and re-produced in the contemporary world. Given this, it would seem rational that any approaches which look to pursue post neoliberal economic futures should try wherever possible to locate non-commodied practices at the heart of these new worlds. As Burns, Williams and Windebank (2004:28) observe: Community self help should not be seen as an off-the-wall radical philosophy. It is for the most part what we do already. And this is where the rub lies for anarchists must begin to construct the world as anarchists want it to be, but do it in the world-as-it-is (Cahill 1989:243). Anarchist visions aside, it is also important to reect and consider what strategies and tactics can be used to successfully promote anarchist-inspired praxis. This may prove the greater challenge. As Goldman (1979:48) noted, as the most revolutionary and uncompromising innovator, Anarchism must meet needs with the combined ignorance and venom of the world it aims to reconstruct. One signicant step forward would be the wider re-integration of a re-vitalised and re-energised anarchism within the contemporary theory and praxis of human and economic geography. It is disappointing to reect on the fact that direct engagement with anarchist ideas and practice within geography have been neglected, or overlooked in favour of other radical geographies (Marxist and feminist critiques for example), for much of the twentieth century. As Blunt and Willis (2000:2) note: Anarchist ideas have inspired enormous change within the discipline, but as yet, they have spawned only the outlines of a tradition of geographical scholarship and there is plenty of scope for further elaboration. If this paper has contributed in some small way toward a (re)turn to anarchist geography, opened up some new opportunities and possibilities to unleash our economic imaginations, helped suggest ways to move beyond authoritarian methods of social organisation, and move purposefully toward a post-neoliberal future, then it will have achieved its purpose.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the four anonymous referees for their constructive insights and valuable suggestions that have helped strengthen the original version of the paper signicantly.

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

18

Antipode

Endnotes
1

On a related point, an important gap in heterodox economics literature concerns the lack of a poststructuralist anarchism intervention. This would be another potential exciting and worthwhile endeavour, and one that has begun to be of inuence elsewhere (eg Jeppesen 2011; Koch 2011; May 1994 2011; Mueller 2011; Newman 2011). 2 The tasks included aspects of house maintenance (outdoor painting, indoor painting, wallpapering, plastering, mending a broken window and maintenance of appliances), home improvement (putting in double glazing, plumbing, electrical work, house insulation, putting in a bathroom suite, building a garage, building an extension, putting in central heating and carpentry), housework (routine housework, cleaning windows outdoors, spring cleaning, cleaning windows indoors, doing the shopping, washing clothes and sheets, ironing, cooking meals, washing dishes, hairdressing, household administration), making and repairing goods (making clothes, repairing clothes, knitting, making or repairing furniture, making or repairing garden equipment, making curtains), car maintenance (washing car, repairing car and car maintenance), gardening (care of indoor plants, outdoor borders, outdoor vegetables, lawn mowing) and caring activities (daytime baby-sitting, night-time baby sitting, educational activities, pet care).

References
Amster R, Deleon A, Fernandez, L A, Nocella II, A J and Shannon D (eds) (2009) Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. London: Routledge Baldelli G (1972) Social Anarchism. Harmondsworth: Penguin Benston M (1969) The political economy of womens liberation. Monthly Review 21(4):1327 Berkmann A (1986 [1929]) Lazy men and dirty work. In G Woodcock (ed) The Anarchist Reader (pp 334338). Glasgow: Fontana Press Blunt A and Willis J (2000) Dissident Geographies. Harlow: Pearson Bookchin M (1989) New social movements: the anarchic dimension. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice (pp 259274). London: Routledge Burns D, Williams C C and Windebank J (2004) Community Self-Help. Basingstoke: Palgrave Cahill T (1989) Co-operatives and anarchism: A contemporary perspective. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice (pp 235258). London: Routledge Cahn E (2000) No More Throw-Away People: The Co-operative Imperative. Washington DC: Essential Books Carter A (1989) Outline of an anarchist theory of history. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice (pp 176197). London: Routledge Castoriadis C (1987) The Imaginary Institution of Society. London: Polity Castree N (2010) Crisis, continuity and change: Neoliberalism, the left and the future of capitalism. Antipode 41(s1):185213 Chatterton P (2010) Autonomy: The struggle for survival, self-management and the common. Antipode 42(4):897908 Cleaver H (1994) Kropotkin, self-valorisation and the crisis of Marxism. Anarchist Studies 2(2):119135 Crang P (1996) Displacement, consumption and identity. Environment and Planning A 28(1):4767 Crewe L and Gregson N (1998) Tales of the unexpected: Exploring car boot sales as marginal spaces of contemporary consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23(1):3953 Crewe L, Gregson N and Brooks K (2003) Alternative retail spaces. In A Leyshon, R Lee and C C Williams (eds) Alternative Economic Spaces (pp 74106). London: Sage England K (ed) (1996) Who Will Mind Baby? Geographies of Child Care and Working Mothers. London: Routledge Fournier V (2008) Escaping from the economy. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 28(11/12):528554 Friere P (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

19

Gershuny J (2000) Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Post-Industrial Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press Gibson-Graham J-K (1996) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Oxford: Blackwell Gibson-Graham J-K (2006a) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy (new edition). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Gibson-Graham J-K (2006b) A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Godwin W (1986 [1793]) The evils of national education. In G Woodcock (ed) The Anarchist Reader (pp 267270). Glasgow: Fontana Press Goldman E (1979) Anarchism: What it really stands for. In A K Shulman (ed) Red Emma Speaks (pp 4763). London: Wildwood House Goodway D (1989) Introduction. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice (pp 122). London: Routledge Gregson N and Crewe L (2002) Second-Hand Worlds. London: Routledge Gregson N and Crewe L (2003) Second-Hand Cultures. Oxford: Berg Gu rin D (1989) Marxism and anarchism. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory e and Practice (pp 109126). London: Routledge Hardt M and Negri A (2000) Empire. Harvard: Harvard University Press Hart G (2010) D/developments after the meltdown. Antipode 41(s1):117141 Illich I (1971) Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row ILO (2002a) Decent Work in the Informal Sector: Latin America. Geneva: International Labour Ofce ILO (2002b) Decent Work and the Informal Economy in Central America. Geneva: International Labour Ofce ILO (2007) The Informal Economy: Enabling Transition to Formalization. Geneva: International Labour Ofce ILO (2008) Bringing Focus to ILO Country-level Contributions: A Guidebook for Developing and Implementing Decent Work Country Programmes Version 2. Geneva: International Labour Ofce ILO (2010) World of Work Report 2010: From one crisis to the next? Geneva: International Labour Ofce Jeppesen S (2011) Things to do with poststructualism in a life of anarchy: Relocating the outpost of post-anarchism. In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 151159). London: Pluto Katz C and Monk J (1993) Full Circles: Geographies of Women over the Life Course. London: Routledge Kenack K J (1990) Bakunin: Marx, Freedom and the State. London: Freedom Press Koch A M (2011) Poststructualism and the epistemological basis of anarchism. In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 2340). London: Pluto Kropotkin P (2002 [1880]) Anarchist morality. In R N Baldwin (ed) Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings (pp 79113). New York: Dover Latouche S (1993) In the Wake of Afuent Society: An Exploration of Post-Development. London: Zed Lee R (1996) Moral money? LETS and the social construction of local economic geographies in southeast England. Environment and Planning A 28:13771394 Leyshon A (2005) Diverse economies. Antipode 37(5):856862 Leyshon A, Lee R and Williams C C (eds) (2003) Alternative Economic Spaces. London: Sage Marshall P (1993) Demanding the Impossible: a History of Anarchism. London: Fontana May T (1994) The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press May T (2011) Is poststructuralist political theory anarchist? In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 4245). London: Pluto McDowell L (1983) Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1(1):5962 McKay I (2008) An Anarchist FAQ, Vol. I. Edinburgh: AK Press
C

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

20

Antipode

McMahon M (1996) From the ground up: Ecofeminism and ecological economics. Ecological Economics 20:163173 Mueller T (2011) Empowering anarchy: Power, hegemony and anarchist strategy. In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 7594). London: Pluto Newman S (2011) Post-anarchism and radical politics today. In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 4668). London: Pluto Norberg-Hodge H (1992) Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. London: Rider North P (1996) LETS: A tool for empowerment in the inner city? Local Economy 11(3):284293 ODPM (2000) Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000. London: Ofce of the Deputy Prime Minister Peck J, Theodore N and Brenner N (2010) Postneoliberalism and its malcontents. Antipode 41(s1):94116 Pepper D (1988) The geography of an anarchist Britain. The Raven 1(4):339350 Pickerill J and Chatterton P (2006) Notes towards autonomous geographies: Creation, resistance and self-management as survival tactics. Progress in Human Geography 30(6):730746 Polanyi K (1944) The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Sale K (1980) The Human Scale. London: Secker & Warburg Samers M (2005) The myopia of diverse economies, or, A critique of the informal economy. Antipode 37(5):875886 Scott A J (2001) Capitalism, cities and the production of symbolic forms. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26:1123 Shiva V (2005) Earth Democracy, Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. London: Zed Shukaitis S (2009) Infrapolitics and the nomadic educational machine. In R Amster, A Deleon, L A Fernandez, A J Nocella II and D Shannon (eds) Contemporary Anarchist Studies (pp 166174). London: Routledge Soiffer S S and Hermann G M (1987) Visions of power: Ideology and practice in the American garage sale. The Sociological Review 35:4883 The Community Collective (2001) Imagining and Enacting Non-capitalist Futures. http://www. communityeconomies.org/site/assets/media/old%20website%20pdfs/Papers/on %20rethinking%20the%20economy/Imagining%20and%20Enacting.pdf (last accessed 15 July 2011) Wade R (2010) Is the globalization consensus dead? Antipode 41(s1):142165 Walt L and Schmidt M (2009) Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. Edinburgh: AK Press Ward C (1982) Anarchy in Action. London: Aldgate Press Ward C (2004) Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press White R J (2009) Explaining why the non-commodied sphere of mutual aid is so pervasive in the advanced economies. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 29(9/10):457 472 White R J and Williams C C (2010) Re-thinking monetary exchange. Review of Social Economy 68(3):317338 Williams C C (2005) A Commodied World? Mapping the Limits of Capitalism. London: Zed Williams C C (2007) Rethinking the Future of Work: Directions and Visions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Williams C C (2011) Geographical variations in the nature of community engagement. Community Development Journal 46(2):213228 Williams C C and Paddock C (2003) The meanings of informal and second-hand retail channels. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 13(3):317 336 Williams C C and Windebank J (2001) Revitalising Deprived Neighbourhoods: An Assisted Selfhelp Approach. Aldershot: Ashgate Woodcock G (1986) Anarchism: A historical introduction. In G Woodcock (ed) The Anarchist Reader (pp 1156). Glasgow: Fontana Press Zelizer V A (1997) The Social Meaning of Money: Pin Money, Paychecks, Poor Relief, and Other Currencies. Princeton: Princeton University Press z Ziek S (2011) Living in The End Times. London: Verso

2012 The Authors. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.